That is part of the investigation the Dem's are worried about and Barr is talking abut, along with the conspiracy by the heads of the FBI and justice Dept. to stop Trump from becoming president and unseat him after he won.

You mean like this?

What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation.

Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge.

But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident.

The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative.

Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election.

Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ ... ries-lede/

So, the advantage of a "counterintelligence investigation", unlike a criminal investigation, is that everything in it is "classified". This wouldn't have been a problem if Clinton had won, no one would have found out.

This was clearly an intentional subversion of the electoral process conducted at the highest level and it's disturbing that so many people are more concerned about Trump.

Absolutely. And Barr is going after it. Nunuez is handing down criminal conspiracy , interfering with an election, abuse of power, and maybe treason suggestions very soon. Trump will be declassifying all the material on the FISA warrant very soon. It will be very interesting to see which of the participants tries for a plea deal first.

[quote=Hot_Pink_Urinal_Mint post_id=966716 time=1555677682 user_id=26922][quote=Johnsell50 post_id=966714 time=1555669090 user_id=46679]That is part of the investigation the Dem's are worried about and Barr is talking abut, along with the conspiracy by the heads of the FBI and justice Dept. to stop Trump from becoming president and unseat him after he won.[/quote]

You mean like this?

[quote]What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation.

Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge.

But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident.

The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative.

Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election.

Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-lede/

So, the advantage of a "counterintelligence investigation", unlike a criminal investigation, is that everything in it is "classified". This wouldn't have been a problem if Clinton had won, no one would have found out.

This was clearly an intentional subversion of the electoral process conducted at the highest level and it's disturbing that so many people are more concerned about Trump.[/quote]

Absolutely. And Barr is going after it. Nunuez is handing down criminal conspiracy , interfering with an election, abuse of power, and maybe treason suggestions very soon. Trump will be declassifying all the material on the FISA warrant very soon. It will be very interesting to see which of the participants tries for a plea deal first.

If you saw all my posts you would have seen I personally dislike him as a man. .

If Trump wants to go raw dog with the star of Young and Anal 5 a month after his son is born, thats his buisness. Paying to cover up that info on the eve of an election is a different story. Why do you personally dislike him?

Is that realy any worse than Clinton getting blow jobs in the White house or Kennedy laying Marylin Monroe in the same. Or is it any worse than many other world leaders... The world laughs at Americans for getting so bent out of shape at immorality. How about paying for a fake dossier, keeping an illegal server with secret material on it, then when you are investigated, scrubbing all your files with "Bleach Bit", having your staff smash your Blackberries with hammers, and lying through your teeth about all of it. That isn't all going away either like they wanted it to.

I don't like his morals, or his attirude. But that doesn't make him a bad president. If it did, almost all of them would have been bad presidents.

If you saw all my posts you would have seen I personally dislike him as a man. .[/quote]If Trump wants to go raw dog with the star of Young and Anal 5 a month after his son is born, thats his buisness. Paying to cover up that info on the eve of an election is a different story. Why do you personally dislike him?[/quote]Is that realy any worse than Clinton getting blow jobs in the White house or Kennedy laying Marylin Monroe in the same. Or is it any worse than many other world leaders... The world laughs at Americans for getting so bent out of shape at immorality. How about paying for a fake dossier, keeping an illegal server with secret material on it, then when you are investigated, scrubbing all your files with "Bleach Bit", having your staff smash your Blackberries with hammers, and lying through your teeth about all of it. That isn't all going away either like they wanted it to.

I don't like his morals, or his attirude. But that doesn't make him a bad president. If it did, almost all of them would have been bad presidents.

If you saw all my posts you would have seen I personally dislike him as a man. .

If Trump wants to go raw dog with the star of Young and Anal 5 a month after his son is born, thats his buisness. Paying to cover up that info on the eve of an election is a different story. Why do you personally dislike him?

[quote=Johnsell50 post_id=966695 time=1555656899 user_id=46679]

If you saw all my posts you would have seen I personally dislike him as a man. .[/quote]If Trump wants to go raw dog with the star of Young and Anal 5 a month after his son is born, thats his buisness. Paying to cover up that info on the eve of an election is a different story. Why do you personally dislike him?

That is part of the investigation the Dem's are worried about and Barr is talking abut, along with the conspiracy by the heads of the FBI and justice Dept. to stop Trump from becoming president and unseat him after he won.

You mean like this?

What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation.

Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge.

But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident.

The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative.

Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election.

Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/ ... ries-lede/

So, the advantage of a "counterintelligence investigation", unlike a criminal investigation, is that everything in it is "classified". This wouldn't have been a problem if Clinton had won, no one would have found out.

This was clearly an intentional subversion of the electoral process conducted at the highest level and it's disturbing that so many people are more concerned about Trump.

[quote=Johnsell50 post_id=966714 time=1555669090 user_id=46679]That is part of the investigation the Dem's are worried about and Barr is talking abut, along with the conspiracy by the heads of the FBI and justice Dept. to stop Trump from becoming president and unseat him after he won.[/quote]

You mean like this?

[quote]What the Times story makes explicit, with studious understatement, is that the Obama administration used its counterintelligence powers to investigate the opposition party’s presidential campaign.

That is, there was no criminal predicate to justify an investigation of any Trump-campaign official. So, the FBI did not open a criminal investigation.

Instead, the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation and hoped that evidence of crimes committed by Trump officials would emerge.

But it is an abuse of power to use counterintelligence powers, including spying and electronic surveillance, to conduct what is actually a criminal investigation.

The Times barely mentions the word counterintelligence in its saga. That’s not an accident.

The paper is crafting the media-Democrat narrative.

Here is how things are to be spun: The FBI was very public about the Clinton-emails investigation, even making disclosures about it on the eve of the election.

Yet it kept the Trump-Russia investigation tightly under wraps, despite intelligence showing that the Kremlin was sabotaging the election for Trump’s benefit. This effectively destroyed Clinton’s candidacy and handed the presidency to Trump.https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/crossfire-hurricane-new-york-times-report-buries-lede/

So, the advantage of a "counterintelligence investigation", unlike a criminal investigation, is that everything in it is "classified". This wouldn't have been a problem if Clinton had won, no one would have found out.

This was clearly an intentional subversion of the electoral process conducted at the highest level and it's disturbing that so many people are more concerned about Trump.

So, in short it was the Aussies and Brits that were spying on the Americans and interfered in the elections. (The Aussie role has been confirmed by the government)

The "dossier" was actually started by Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS. He put out a load of fabricated dirt on Trump, which came in useful when he later fed to Steel, so that Steel could add the MI-6 "sparkle" to it, and hand it back.

Alexander Downer, having given the Clinton Money Laundering Machine (AKA The Clinton Foundation) $25m, fed the story to Team Hillary, who gave it to the FBI.

LOL! The Russians couldn’t even contact Trump, they had no connections to anyone in the campaign. Even Putin’s congratulatory message on election night got blown off to an email via assistants.

Yup. and Hilary's funds funneled through Fusion GPS paid for the dossier. That is part of the investigation the Dem's are worried about and Barr is talking abut, along with the conspiracy by the heads of the FBI and justice Dept. to stop Trump from becoming president and unseat him after he won.

[quote=Hot_Pink_Urinal_Mint post_id=966713 time=1555667754 user_id=26922]So, in short it was the Aussies and Brits that were spying on the Americans and interfered in the elections. (The Aussie role has been confirmed by the government)

The "dossier" was actually started by Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS. He put out a load of fabricated dirt on Trump, which came in useful when he later fed to Steel, so that Steel could add the MI-6 "sparkle" to it, and hand it back.

Alexander Downer, having given the Clinton Money Laundering Machine (AKA The Clinton Foundation) $25m, fed the story to Team Hillary, who gave it to the FBI.

LOL! The Russians couldn’t even contact Trump, they had no connections to anyone in the campaign. Even Putin’s congratulatory message on election night got blown off to an email via assistants.

[url=https://postimages.org/][img]https://i.postimg.cc/43tYqbb4/D4ddw-Tp-UYAAtyd-N.jpg[/img][/url][/quote]Yup. and Hilary's funds funneled through Fusion GPS paid for the dossier. That is part of the investigation the Dem's are worried about and Barr is talking abut, along with the conspiracy by the heads of the FBI and justice Dept. to stop Trump from becoming president and unseat him after he won.

So, in short it was the Aussies and Brits that were spying on the Americans and interfered in the elections. (The Aussie role has been confirmed by the government)

The "dossier" was actually started by Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS. He put out a load of fabricated dirt on Trump, which came in useful when he later fed to Steel, so that Steel could add the MI-6 "sparkle" to it, and hand it back.

Alexander Downer, having given the Clinton Money Laundering Machine (AKA The Clinton Foundation) $25m, fed the story to Team Hillary, who gave it to the FBI.

LOL! The Russians couldn’t even contact Trump, they had no connections to anyone in the campaign. Even Putin’s congratulatory message on election night got blown off to an email via assistants.

So, in short it was the Aussies and Brits that were spying on the Americans and interfered in the elections. (The Aussie role has been confirmed by the government)

The "dossier" was actually started by Glenn Simpson from Fusion GPS. He put out a load of fabricated dirt on Trump, which came in useful when he later fed to Steel, so that Steel could add the MI-6 "sparkle" to it, and hand it back.

Alexander Downer, having given the Clinton Money Laundering Machine (AKA The Clinton Foundation) $25m, fed the story to Team Hillary, who gave it to the FBI.

LOL! The Russians couldn’t even contact Trump, they had no connections to anyone in the campaign. Even Putin’s congratulatory message on election night got blown off to an email via assistants.

The Mueller report has uncovered many instances of obstruction of justice, it's not over yet.

Passages of the report describe behind-the-scenes moments as the president fended off the advance of investigators, including a description of Trump’s reaction to the appointment of Mueller in 2017: “The President slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.’”

That billboard is an apt description of the drivlel on far right a.m. radio here in the states. I remember the good old days before Fox news was in SEA.

[quote="Lucky Lucan" post_id=966684 time=1555647397 user_id=30017]The Mueller report has uncovered many instances of obstruction of justice, it's not over yet.

[quote]Passages of the report describe behind-the-scenes moments as the president fended off the advance of investigators, including a description of Trump’s reaction to the appointment of Mueller in 2017: “The President slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.’”[/quote]

[url=https://postimg.cc/Mvkj1nxt][img]https://i.postimg.cc/BQbc9FzW/idiocy.jpg[/img][/url][/quote]That billboard is an apt description of the drivlel on far right a.m. radio here in the states. I remember the good old days before Fox news was in SEA. 8-)

@Johnsell50 - there's things I both agree & disagree with you on in your various Trump threads, I just want to ask - are there any things that Trump has done or announced he will do that you DON'T agree with?

Honestly curious, you put a lot of effort into defending the man, much the same way I would argue the benefits say of Winston Churchill versus a whole bunch of new-wave persecutors of his hideous crimes against humanity. But there are some things having read the excellent Martin Gilbert autobiography on him among numerous political WWI/WWII books that also had me tutting in my head. So I feel I have a balanced opinion of the man, and thus happy to criticise or endorse depending. So far I only saw you defend Trump to the hilt on everything, I'd like to know anything you actually dislike about him, or is he truly the Messiah and not just a naughty boy?

If you saw all my posts you would have seen I personally dislike him as a man. I do really like some of the things he has done as a president, and dislike some of the things because I think he has not gone far enough. I think sanctuary cities should be punished by pulling all federal funds. I think all immigration laws should be strictly enforced by all law enforcement. I think all trade shoud be fair trade, with all our import taxes to match all export taxes into any other country. And...

[quote=Spigzy post_id=966688 time=1555653670 user_id=32653]@Johnsell50 - there's things I both agree & disagree with you on in your various Trump threads, I just want to ask - are there any things that Trump has done or announced he will do that you DON'T agree with?

Honestly curious, you put a lot of effort into defending the man, much the same way I would argue the benefits say of Winston Churchill versus a whole bunch of new-wave persecutors of his hideous crimes against humanity. But there are some things having read the excellent Martin Gilbert autobiography on him among numerous political WWI/WWII books that also had me tutting in my head. So I feel I have a balanced opinion of the man, and thus happy to criticise or endorse depending. So far I only saw you defend Trump to the hilt on everything, I'd like to know anything you actually dislike about him, or is he truly the Messiah and not just a naughty boy?[/quote]

If you saw all my posts you would have seen I personally dislike him as a man. I do really like some of the things he has done as a president, and dislike some of the things because I think he has not gone far enough. I think sanctuary cities should be punished by pulling all federal funds. I think all immigration laws should be strictly enforced by all law enforcement. I think all trade shoud be fair trade, with all our import taxes to match all export taxes into any other country. And...

@Johnsell50 - there's things I both agree & disagree with you on in your various Trump threads, I just want to ask - are there any things that Trump has done or announced he will do that you DON'T agree with?

Honestly curious, you put a lot of effort into defending the man, much the same way I would argue the benefits say of Winston Churchill versus a whole bunch of new-wave persecutors of his hideous crimes against humanity. But there are some things having read the excellent Martin Gilbert autobiography on him among numerous political WWI/WWII books that also had me tutting in my head. So I feel I have a balanced opinion of the man, and thus happy to criticise or endorse depending. So far I only saw you defend Trump to the hilt on everything, I'd like to know anything you actually dislike about him, or is he truly the Messiah and not just a naughty boy?

@Johnsell50 - there's things I both agree & disagree with you on in your various Trump threads, I just want to ask - are there any things that Trump has done or announced he will do that you DON'T agree with?

Honestly curious, you put a lot of effort into defending the man, much the same way I would argue the benefits say of Winston Churchill versus a whole bunch of new-wave persecutors of his hideous crimes against humanity. But there are some things having read the excellent Martin Gilbert autobiography on him among numerous political WWI/WWII books that also had me tutting in my head. So I feel I have a balanced opinion of the man, and thus happy to criticise or endorse depending. So far I only saw you defend Trump to the hilt on everything, I'd like to know anything you actually dislike about him, or is he truly the Messiah and not just a naughty boy?

The Mueller report has uncovered many instances of obstruction of justice, it's not over yet.

Passages of the report describe behind-the-scenes moments as the president fended off the advance of investigators, including a description of Trump’s reaction to the appointment of Mueller in 2017: “The President slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.’”

The Mueller report has uncovered many instances of obstruction of justice, it's not over yet.

[quote]Passages of the report describe behind-the-scenes moments as the president fended off the advance of investigators, including a description of Trump’s reaction to the appointment of Mueller in 2017: “The President slumped back in his chair and said, ‘Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I’m fucked.’”[/quote]

Well, the Mueller report was released to Congress today, and surprise, no surprises. No "Collusion", which was never a crime to begin with, and no other charges from it, including obstruction of justice. Now it is the turn of the Democrats to sweat for a while.

Well, the Mueller report was released to Congress today, and surprise, no surprises. No "Collusion", which was never a crime to begin with, and no other charges from it, including obstruction of justice. Now it is the turn of the Democrats to sweat for a while.

This witch hunt is over, but there will probably be another one soon enough. Because Trump is such a polarising figure, he can expect hyper-criticism and scrutiny, albeit exaggerated or fabricated; goes with the territory, one might expect.

He openly displays a pervasive arrogance which is all part of his bellicose bluffing style and some find that appealing, it would appear.

This witch hunt is over, but there will probably be another one soon enough. Because Trump is such a polarising figure, he can expect hyper-criticism and scrutiny, albeit exaggerated or fabricated; goes with the territory, one might expect.

He openly displays a pervasive arrogance which is all part of his bellicose bluffing style and some find that appealing, it would appear.